Francis, The Perverts’ Hero

Elton John, the pathetic freak show, has just stated that Francis is “his hero”; seasoning his stupid utterances with the usual bollocks about his own perverted concept of “love”. It is clear here that the pathetic freak show is referring to Francis' failed attempt to pervert Catholicism toward sexual perversion.

This will make headlines worldwide.

I wonder how many Pollyannas will start to open their big blue eyes after this. A man who is everything the Church considers scandalous and abominable praises a Pope for trying to bring the Church on his side. If this does not open Pollyanna's big eyes, what ever will?

Open your big blue eyes, Pollyanna. This is a papacy fit for atheists and perverts. By continuing in your increasingly more stubborn blindness, you are endangering your soul.

M

When Popes Taught To Pray

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

Pope Clemens XI

Pope Clemens XI

Find below the “Prayer for all things necessary to salvation”, a prayer attributed to Pope Clement XI and released in the Year 1721.

There is longer version, with the part starting with “All that I have asked for myself”. I have not posted it here, because I do not think the added part is original. Please show me the right link if I am wrong.

Note how Pope Clemens takes care to guide the faithful, through a long-winded prayer, along a rather complete path to salvation. All with set words, to be recited without variation time after time.

“Spontaneous” prayer was, evidently, not a favourite of this Pope, as he would otherwise not have bothered with such a long exercise. On the contrary, it is clear the late Pontiff wanted to give a prayerful “path” to the faithful on which they could meditate regularly, and that they…

View original 593 more words

The NSA And The Pope

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

View original

Pope Insults Every Catholic Theologian, Saint, Martyr, Priest And Layman.


Tut-tut, Thomas. You should be ashamed...


And it came to pass TMAHICH met, as the Vatican news agency reports, representatives of the Proddie community to which the late buddy of his, Tony Palmer, belonged before going to meet (or not, as the case may be) his Maker.

During this meeting Pope Francis made, as usual, some stunning affirmations, notable for their decidedly anti-Catholic character.

The main one: we sin when we focus on our differences.

I wish his grandmother had slapped him in the face as a child. I wish his spiritual director at the seminary had kicked his ass all day long. I wish he had become just another of the potheads leaving the priesthood in the Seventies. Alas, the second and third have not happened, and the first did not, if it really happened, had any lasting result.

The missionaries, preachers, theologians, and simple priests sinned all this time, then, by defending Catholicism against heresies. The countless martyrs who decided to suffer death or persecution in order to “focus on the differences” rather than going along with the world were, according to this nincompoop, sinning. Oh St Thomas Aquinas, you must be one of the greatest sinners of all! Oh St Thomas More and St John Fisher, what great sinners you were!

In charity, one must say that this man might be an alcoholic, but we must wait to see whether something is leaked about it. He might also, for all we know, still smoke marijuana (he already admitted he did so as a young man; another good example given to the youth. What a cool pothead our Pope is…). I am by now persuaded he is not stupid, and whilst obviously not very intelligent he seems to be rather cunning.

He must be evil, then.

He is most certainly not Catholic.

The rest of this possibly grappa-fueled or marijuana-driven speech goes along the same lines, so I will spare you the revolting details.

The devil divides us, you know; but we must be smarter and just overlook the differences. This is worse than Protestant, as you will find that even Protestants do not generally simply overlook the differences. Wrong as they are, they at least believe their wrongness is right. They do not say that they in the end just do not care. Francis, the Pope, does!

This is satanical. This is the same as saying that the specificity of Catholicism is just an obstacle to the understanding among Christians; a pastime for quibbling Theologians; an occasion of sin! It is so sad, that he can't have his sorry ass kicked all the way from the faggot-run hotel to Termini Station! It would be so good for his soul! It would be, perhaps, his only chance to redemption! Alas, as a Pope he enjoys physical inviolability. Which makes of his redemption a very arduous task.

This is an Apprentice Sorcerer who has already miserably failed his apprenticeship. Screwtape will not be happy with him at all.

This man is of the devil, and I thank God that He at least gives us the opportunity to spot it so easily, if we but stay by His teaching and the teaching of the Church. Had he been smarter in his doings, the deception would have been easier. As it is, no informed Catholic has any excuse.

There is no way you can love the Church and side with this man, knowing what he is saying.

This man is, clearly, the stuff of reprobates. Which is why they love him so much, and applaud him whilst he insults Catholics and Catholicism every day.

But you, dear read, you keep strong in the Faith of our Fathers. You know better than to follow a heretic, blaspheming, socialist, sacrilegious pothead just because he is dressed in white, and embraces wheelchairs.

M

 

The Ways Of The Clergyman According To M

 

 

If you follow Catholic priests – as I do – you might notice – as I think I do – a certain “style” of criticism, that to me seems rather uniform. The main rules I can recognise are the following:

- the civility of the criticism (excessive, if you ask me, in most cases; but then again I am not a priest) and

- the limitation of the criticism to a fact or a statement, without ever targeting the person, if the person if a fellow clergyman.

I notice this very often in the priestly blogs I follow: there is the statement of a fact, and the criticism of the fact. There is the report of a certain statement, and the refutation of that particular statement. Clergymen of this type do not attack other clergymen as people (some other clergymen, of another type, do; Cardinal Kasper comes to mind; but not the ones I am talking about).

I have read, at the time it was finally published, the full transcript of Cardinal Burke’s interview to BuzzFeed. I was in no doubt that the actual words of the interview, when they were made public, did not contain a direct criticism of the character of Francis as person, as much as a very strong criticism of a certain behaviour in a certain, particular circumstance. Which, in the case of a Pope, is a very strong criticism, but not a personal attack.

The difference between “what the Pope does is bad” and “the Pope is bad” is not a milder criticism in the second case. It is, in my view, the desire to make clear that the criticism is a factual one, not a personal one. This is, I think, always important among the right kind of clergymen; but it becomes even more important when Cardinal Kasper blathers all the time about attacks to the Pope and enemies of the Pope.

In some cultures, this difference between the person and the issue at hand is more blurred, and there is a more or less implied understanding that you criticise a man as a result of an action or a statement of his; whilst in other cultures – like the German and, I begin to think, the ecclesiastical one – the distinction between the criticism of a person and the criticism of his stance are far more marked. The Germans even have an adjective (“sachlich”), which conveys this idea of being “linked to a thing”, rather than to the person attached to it. Whilst every language has such expressions, in the case of the Germans the frequency of its use conveys to the Foreigner the particular importance attached to it. In the case of churchmen, I doubt there is an equivalent expression; but the praxis is, it seems to me, just as solidly established: he who attacks the person looks bad; the battle is always fought on things, not people.

Therefore, I am unable to see in the recent clarification of Cardinal Burke any kind of backpedaling or watering down of his criticism. Besides, the man is a legally trained mind, and for legally trained minds distinctions of this sort do matter.

On the contrary, it seems to me – and I may be wrong on this; time will tell – that with his brutal repetition of the exact content of his criticism – the exact one; without softening of any sort – the Cardinal has sent quite the contrary message. A message which I for myself read thus: “please do not describe me as the personal enemy of the Pope; but my criticism of what he does is still there, and for the sake of clarity I will repeat it word for word”.

I have just written that the way I know these things, the criticism is often followed by a “soft retractation” meant to deny the implied, but very obvious criticism. In this case, it seems to me that the Cardinal is not ready to do even that; conscious, perhaps, of the huge dismay every little apparent giving away of Catholic ground could have on countless faithful Catholics.

I am, though, simply unable to see any difference in the clarification, which has to me the very same meaning I had already understood: what the Pope is doing – a specific conduct: not intervening against heresy – harms the Church. Headline writers tend to be imprecise and untechnical, something a rigorous legal mind like Burke will not let stand without correction. Honestly, I did not even need the clarification, because I got the Cardinal the first time, and I always discount the titles.

—-

I do not know how strong Burke and his are. I have no way to read their mind and measure their determination on a scale from one to ten. I pray that the Lord may give them, and all those willing to take this battle on their shoulders, the determination to fight, and to fight well.

I suspect, in fact, that now a very complicated and subterranean game will begin, in which both sides will alternate public interventions with a very intensive corridor work. The result of this work will, probably, only become clear in October 2015. I cannot tell you how it will end. I am fairly optimistic, but then I always am. I carry the Roman sun inside, and if at times I do not see the shadows, I still think this Roman sun is a very good help in seeing the reality around me. Yes, I have my worries for the huge battle in front of us.

But Cardinal Burke’s clarification is, as far as I am concerned, not one of them.

M

 

 

 

 

 

Let’s Talk About Bastards

TMAHICH has given another example of boundless hypocrisy and utter carelessness today for what he has said yesterday.

The family is being “bastardised”, he decries. Nowadays, so much is called “family”.

Well, let me think aloud here.

The family would be less bastardised if there were no Archbishops sending their priests in the slums, allowing mass sacrilege as they permit everyone to receive communion in a context in which 80% or more of couples are not married and, therefore, presumably 80% of children are bastards.

There is, in fact, no way to bastardise the family more effectively than what Francis has done as Archbishop and is doing as Pope: allowing mass sacrilege in his own diocese, devaluing marriage as he allows concubines to receive, marrying in his capacity as Pope public concubines, allowing the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires to baptise poor children “adopted” by goddamn dykes, and in general sabotaging the very idea of family with a Synod full of heresy, blasphemy and sexual perversion.

Francis is like a Hitler complaining of Antisemitism. With the important difference that Hitler at least did not have the stunning hypocrisy of decrying what he himself promoted day in and day out.

Francis is here, clearly, trying to remake a virginity by appearing a defender of the family. He is in fact, and remains, its worst enemy. He is merely being his Modernist self, and throwing some pigeon feed to the Pollyannas so that they may now storm the comment boxes of blogs and fora singing the praise of Francis The Defender Of Family.

The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History has opened his mouth again, and again he has given us a demonstration of his breathtakingly double-tongued persona.

Don’t believe one word of what he says. Francis may not be, technically at least, a bastard; but his Catholicism is not even recognisable as bastardised.

It is just not there.

M

 

Calling All Church Historians

Just as a way of I do not want to say “preparation for the worse”, but rather “exploration of our past”, I would be very grateful for credible sources and links concerning what exactly happened during (not after) the Pontificates of Popes like Liberius, Honorius, Formosus, or John XXII. 

Let me explain: though we all know that Liberius lost face and Honorius was declared heretic in the end, and after their death, that Formosus was also rather spectacularly condemned after death, and that John XXII renounced to his error the day before he died, I am rather curious to know more about the day-to-day dealing of the clergy and the the faithful when these Popes were still alive and in power. 

Take John XXII. 

Chappy goes around saying that there is no beatific Vision before the Universal Judgment. He says he is minded to proclaim this as dogma. His attempt is thwarted (methinks, some Dominican managed to let the stake appear to him a very real possibility; but that’s just me…) and he renounces to the proclamation of the dogma; but at this point, the world still has a Pope who is as officially heretical as can be; a formal heretic so attached to his error as to continue to defend it for almost the rest of his life in front of the brutal opposition of his own Church; one whose theology denies all the edifice of the Communion of saints, make a good part of the Mass senseless, et cetera, and still keeps saying he is right and Church Tradition and Mass are wrong.

How did the bishops deal with him? Did they deny him obedience in everything? Or only in that which pertained directly to his heretical thinking? If he issued encyclical letters, what value did they have? I know that the Sea was not declared vacant in the proper sense (say: with the large majority of Cardinals and Bishops declaring the Sea empty for manifest and persistent heresy; this is, in my understanding, the concept that St. Robert Bellarmine developed later), but do we know of bishops and cardinals who simply declared that they would deny obedience to such a Pope, without denying that he is Pope? What happens of the cardinals and bishops appointed by a Pope in manifest heresy? What of his letters, bulls, etc? What of his administrative orders, disciplinary measures,and such? They may be changed, of course. But were they valid?

It’s even more complicated for Formosus; because whilst we – AFAIK – know that many of his administrative acts were declared at least formally invalid after his death – I have little doubt many will have been validated by his successor anyway – there is a thick fog as to what  happened whilst Formosus was alive and in charge. Formosus remained Pope for around five years. This is a long, long time for the wrong kind of Pope. But then again it would appear the Sea was not declared vacant: not during his Pontificate, and not even retroactively after his condemnation in the famous “Cadaver Synod”. May his acts have been annulled, this does not make a Pontificate null. Nor does it answer the question whether his acts were obeyed at the time they were issued.

If Francis throws himself and the Church (or better: those member of her who will be reckless enough to follow him) in the abyss of blasphemy and heresy, it will be very important to have clear historical coordinates about what exactly happened in the past in at least comparable circumstances.

Ideally, from places like the SSPX a clear guidance should come before hand: how to behave in scenarios a, b, or c; what conditions must exactly be fulfilled for the Sea to be declared vacant; in which ways the SSPX would examine the matter and make it public, etc.

Mind, not only I do not think in the least that the Sedevacantist position is justified as I write this. I do not even think that Francis will ever be so stupid as to push things in that direction, because as I have already written it seems to me that when he had to show if he has the balls to plunge the Church into chaos he showed no balls whatsoever, but abundant Jesuitism instead.

But it is true that we are at the brink of a precipice, irrespective of how optimistic we may be concerning vast sectors of the Church ever falling into it.

 

I am grateful for usable historical material.

What times are we living in.

Ah? Uh? No? 

Mundabor 

Megascreen Mass

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

The Bishop of Rome was very talkative.

View original

Sensus Catholicus And Common Sense: On The Proper Way Of Catholic Warfare.

 

The Whermacht is coming. Wait, let us discuss whether Pell is truly 100% perfect!

The Whermacht is coming. Wait, let us discuss whether Pell is truly 100% perfect!

 

I wish I could find an old post about the Church teaching in dealing with bad laws. 

The gist of it was that first one tries everything he can to avoid the laws becoming such in the first place; if this fails, then one tries everything he can to have them repealed; if even this fails, then one tries to have them destroyed one piece at a time. But to destroy the law a piece at a time will always, for the sound Catholic, be the better choice than an unreal battle to have the law repealed, when it is just not realistic to obtain the optimal result. 

Example: abortion. Catholic teaching in the matter is simple and clear: First, savage battle to avoid abortion legislation. If this partout fails, savage battle to have it repealed. If this partout fails, “salami tactics” (this is a nice German expression) which means: the targeted result is pursued, and hopefully obtained, one slice at a time. In this case this means proposing and having passed everything from higher medical standards for abortion mills, to the shortening of the periods in which abortion is legal, to the obligation to have a scanned image obtained, to longer waiting times, etc.

The thinking behind this is the solid common sense that is behind sound Catholic minds: if I can’t save – for now – one million aborted babies, I will try to save at least one hundred thousand of them. The first step will then, hopefully, lead to the second, and the third.

In this example, and in many others to which the same principle may be applied, you do not renounce to a positive intermediate result in the name of an end result that cannot, for the moment at least, be achieved at all. You do not renounce to a law shortening the time in which it is legal to abort because “this would mean to be accomplices of abortion”. What you do is: uphold Church teaching in all things (you will always be vociferous against abortion tout court; because what is impossible in this generation may be possible in the next, or the following one, and because the Church’s stance against abortion is the Truth of Christ), and take every slice of the salami you can.

Is it possible to have partial legislation against abortion? Well: go for it, for heaven’s sake! Do not condemn babies to die because the law is not beautiful enough for you!  When babies are dying you save as many as you can, you do not sacrifice them to your beautiful, but unreachable ideals!

This is what the Church has always done in her dealing with secular powers, at least until Vatican II: the entire Catholic Truth, whenever I can; as much of it as I can, always. Therefore, in certain Countries She managed to be State Religion; but in those Country where she could not manage to do so (say: USA, United Kingdom), she tried to obtain as much freedom of religion for Catholics as possible. She did not say “I am not interested in freedom of speech, or of cult, for English Catholics! Either you make of Catholicism the State Religion or I am very happy to retreat in the Catacombs!”

You do not allow a secular State to push Catholics in the catacombs just because you cannot be the Religion of State. You do not allow the Church to be pushed underground just because the ideal of a Catholic state cannot be realised. You may feel more beautiful in the catacombs, but countless souls will be lost – seen from an earthly perspective – because of your quest for purity. There is no doubt that the Church in the catacombs was purer than the Church out of it. But the aim of the Church is to spread all over the world, not to stay beautiful in the catacombs. 

When Constantine allowed freedom of cult to Christians, they did not refuse it because Constantine himself wasn’t even baptised. When Paul went all over the Mediterranean to gain converts to Christianity, he did not demand the demise of the Roman Empire as a precondition. When countless missionaries converted local kings and local warlords to Christianity, you can bet your hat that in many cases the thus converted King kept having a number of concubines around him. Those missionaries certainly knew it very well. They took one slice at a time. In the case of the king’s conversion, they got to pretty much the entire salami, but again if they had asked an exemplary life of him, in many cases not one slice would have been obtained.  

Dreaming is one thing, doing is another. Keep dreaming if you want to. This blog is for those who prefer reality.

Does this mean that the Church must capitulate to (oh, that word) “gradualism”? Certainly not! Not, at least, if it is meant – as it was meant at the synod – compromising with the Truth. 

On one hand, to uphold the Catholic teaching in its entirety is not only advisable, but absolutely mandatory. On the other hand, to have this Catholic teaching reintroduced in phases – as long as it cannot be done in one go – is the only viable way, and it is the way the Church has always chosen. Do you think Cardinal Consalvi would say to Napoleon “either you make of us the State Religion again, or we don’t care if you kill every Catholic in France”? No. Do you think he demanded from Napoleon that he starts living an exemplary Christian life? Come on. What the man instead did was to lead Napoleon to the recognition of the advantages for him in having this Church as the State religion again. I am sure he did not expect a mystical Napoleon after that. But I am rather sure he was pretty pleased with what he had accomplished anyway. By the by: Napoleon ended up dying in his bed, a Catholic, with the comfort of the Sacraments. 

I could go on until tomorrow, but you get the drift. 

—–

Why do I write all this? Because this applies to our age exactly as well as to all ages before, and after it. 

I get positively scared when I read commenters stating that I should not support Pell, because Pell would not pass the SSPX-Test. No he wouldn’t. Nor would Piacenza, or Mueller, or even Burke! They wouldn’t, because they are, all of them, polluted by V II, the one more and the other less. But for heaven’s sake, to discuss the merits of Mueller’s orthodoxy when Satan himself is launching all his armoured divisions against the Church seems criminally negligent to me.

We run the risk of having the Church as we know it – and be it in the largely defective V II version – wiped out of a good part of the West. We run the risk of a confusion of faithful, of a spiritual chaos like the planet has never, ever seen. Forgive me if I do not have any time for your complaints against Cardinal Pell!

The same applies, of course, to other matters, like freedom of speech. As I write this, freedom of speech is the only thing that keeps Christianity, in many Western Countries, away from the catacombs. It leaves me breathless that to defend freedom of speech would be something bad, because it does not correspond to some Catholic dream certainly not realisable in our generation, and probably not even in the next one.  

At times I think that in some Catholics a mentality takes over, that in Italian is called “tanto peggio, tanto meglio” or “the worse, the better”. As if it were a matter of no importance whether in the West Christianity can reach everyone or not, or whether the West keeps as much as it can of Christian mentality and civilisation; as if it were irrelevant whether the Bride of Christ is raped by a gang of thugs and carried on the street, bleeding copiously, by a drunken mob, or is as strong and vigorous as can reasonably be hoped in the present, sad, circumstances. 

 “But Mundabor! It is good if the Bride of Christ is raped by a gang of thugs and carried on the street bleeding! Don’t you know that she will not die anyway?”

“But Mundabor! It is good if Christianity disappears from all over the West and is reduced to the catacombs: just think of how beautiful the fifteen of us will feel once we are there!”. 

Please let us not joke here. Lives are at stake. Souls are at stake. The Christian West is at stake.

Thank God every day instead,and pray Him every night, for the likes of Mueller, Pell, or Burke. Pray that God send us many more of them, and be they  of the V II garden variety, provided they are willing to fight against the extreme Francis variety. Pray FIRST that they may find the strenght to lead us in battle against the extremely strong army of Satan that is forming its ranks as we speak. And pray SECOND that when the battle at hand is won, a new awareness may be created about the real root and first cause of all this mess: Vatican II.

 We are about to be invaded by the Wehrmacht, and we should discuss about the credentials of the only generals we found – and lucky to get them – ready to lead our army?

Don’t make me laugh.

Mundabor  

 

   

 

 

     

 

How Long Shall The Wicked Triumph?

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

Lord, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?

How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves?

 They break in pieces thy people, O Lord, and afflict thine heritage.

 They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.

 Yet they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it.

 Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise?

 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?

He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? 

The recurring 40th anniversary of Roe vs Wade is a good way to say a word or two about the pendulum which seems to swing across societal…

View original 597 more words

The Ugly Truth Begins To Emerge

"Forward!", says Francis...

“Forward!”, says Francis…

 

There is an article on that pit of iniquity called New York Times that, for once, deals with the events of the last weeks in a half balanced way

Forget the man’s rubbish about “the gays” (he writes for the NYT after all, “where sodomy and lesbianism are embraced and proposed”), and focus on the main points of Mr Douthat’s article: 

1. The Pope was the instigator of the attempt at the Church’s sacramental life

2. He has failed to see it executed.  

3. The Bishops (at large) did not follow him, because they never could. 

4. Were it to happen as the Pope desires, a situation of – proclaimed or de factoschism or vacant see would kick in as the bishops who still are Catholic refuse to share responsibility with those who aren’t. Pat Buchanan made a similar point last week. They are clearly both right. 

It does not take a genius to get all these points, but it is notable that a Mr Douthat – a mainstream journalist writing for an atrociously secular and anti-Christian publication – gets them. It means that in the next 12 months more and more people, even not interested in the ways and life of the Church, will get one thing clear: that whatever their personal errors and warped way of seeing life, they can’t just demand that the Church converts to them. She will not, because she is the Church. 

An outsider like Douthat sees, though, very clearly what many of our own Pollyannas still do not want to see: this Pope has already led the Church on the brink of the abyss, and there is no guarantee he will not decide to jump into it, carrying with him as many as he can. 

In Catholic language – which Mr Douthat does not use – it means that this Pope is the enemy of Catholicism, and a threat to the Church the like of which has not been seen since John XXII. 

Even the parts of the secular world with a functioning brain begin to understand the stakes of this tragic game. 

It is astonishing – and inexcusable – that so many parts of the Catholics still do not. 

Mundabor

 

Faggot vs Faggot.

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

Faggoty fraternity sues other faggoty fraternity for trademark infringement and unlawful trade.

You couldn’t make this stuff up; still, it’s true.

It confirms the well-spread notion that when homos are not complaining about “homophobia” (also known as “Christian morality”) they are bitching against each other…

Mundabor

View original

Rowan Atkinson Speaks Against “Hate Speech Laws”

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

One of the most astonishing fruit of the modern political correctness mentality is the “hate speech” legislation here in the UK. This legislation, fairly ignored in the last years, has risen to (un)popularity after a series of cases in the last months, where a number of (temporary) arrests have been made for the most ridiculous things (“homophobic” tweets; tweeting “all soldiers should die”).

The problem is here that there are more and more people are ready to cry “hate” whenever you say something they don’t like (say: that they are abominable perverts; like faggots, lesbians and other perverts).

Those who know Atkinson a bit more than from Mr. Bean know he is a highly intelligent, well-spoken, perceptive individual very much sensitive to the elementary matter of freedom of expression.

I invite you to listen to the 9-minute speech of Mr Atkinson, who deals with the various aspects of the matter…

View original 101 more words

How To Destroy A HereticalPope

The technical drawings of Cardinal Pell's message have been released to the Press.

The technical drawings of Cardinal Pell’s message have been released to the Press…

 

 

Do you know Italian politics? Well, you should. Or politics of all sorts, come to that. Then people are the same everywhere. 

In every Country which calls itself “civilised”, the barrage against a person in a position of great authority, or even the chef (the Primo Ministro, or Prime Minister, or Bundeskanzler, or whoever  he may be) begins with absolutely damning statements along the lines of “he’s such a wonderful gardener”, “I love his choice of ties” or “his concern for  kindergarten teachers is just wonderful”. 

This is the way people in position of power and influence criticise their boss in a way that still does resemble, very vaguely, some plausible deniability. But seriously, everyone who has a brain understands what it is all about. Newspapers thrive about this, because when what it is left unsaid is left unsaid very loud it can only be manna for them. 

The game usually goes on – and I am sure this time is no exception – with the powerful (former) supporter stating that no, you all got it wrong; how could you misunderstand him; you naughty boys; of course, the Primo Ministro is so much more than a wonderful gardener! And there was, obviously, no intention to criticise in any way such a wonderful head of government! Who, as everyone knows, has been so successful, and has the undivided confidence of the entire nation!

In this way, the critic safely comes back in a covered position, after having launched the message for all the planet to see. The attacked, meanwhile, has no ways to mount an open attack against him. He looks revengeful if he acts, and weak if he doesn’t. The impression for everyone who has brains is clear: he is losing the support of his own people.

This is how politics works. If you do not understand these dynamics, I suggest you limit yourself to Mickey Mouse. 

—–

Cardinal Pell today launched what, for Church standards, must be one of the most scathing attacks launched on a Pope in modern history. A member of the “”Gang of Eight”, Pell is in charge of re-ordering the finances of the Vatican, both in terms of spending and governance. He is, therefore, at the very heart of Vatican power. But he also, apparently, believes in God, which I can’t say for the… wonderful gardener. Pell not only has the chuzpah to thunder, but he also has a newly acquired position from which Francis cannot remove him without looking extremely stupid even in the eyes of the Polyannas. This will get interesting. 

Let us, then, read what the good man had to say about Francis. He was ill, so he sent a written address to the Summorum Pontificum fan waiting for him. I quote:

1. “Pope Francis is the 266th pope and history has seen 37 false or antipopes,” 

2. “The story of the popes is stranger than fiction,” [...] [and today] “we have one of the more unusual popes in history, enjoying almost unprecedented popularity. He is doing a marvellous job making the financial reforms,”

The first cannonade is terrifying. Talking of a very contested Pope, the Cardinal reminds the Traditionalist faithful that… they should not be so shellshocked, because we have lived all this many times. 

” But Mundabor! He does not mean it that way!” 

But dear reader, oh yes he does!! No one in his right mind would, otherwise, have chosen to speak of the scaffold when everyone is talking about the convicted felon!

Not happy, the good Cardinal is mindful of those who would think, in their innocence, that he is not really making a comparison between Francis and his numerous heretical predecessors. Those, he decides to help with another generous helping of Traditional Tiramisu, if they are smart enough to appreciate the ingredients. He goes on praising a Pope who has made nothing else than headlines for his heterodoxy because of his… job as a financial reformer.

Oh, how this old heart laughs!

This is not even “damning with faint praise”. This is shooting with the cannon of an M1 tank, and then saying to Francis: “don’t worry, Frankie boy. It’s merely a bit of faint praise…”

I give you my reading of the events here. If I am right, you read it here first. If I am wrong, I have left my crystal ball home. 

What I think is happening is that as Francis keep positioning himself as the “good reformer”, Catholic Cardinals start positioning him as the “heretical Pope”. All, of course, in view of the 2015 synod, which will be a real “make or break” for Catholicism as we have known it up to now.  

Francis keeps spouting heretical drivel every day, and now his own cardinals start saying: “look, don’t listen to the old man, he is a disgrace that has recurred many times in Church History”. A dozen of orthodox Cardinals and Archbishops among the most prestigious can destroy this papacy, as it ha snot happened for now many centuries that Cardinals openly criticise a Pope in doctrinal matters. If Francis does not get this, then we are steering the biggest conflicts in many centuries, because I can’t imagine the Church remaining silent as an old lewd man walks and defecates all over Her.  

If Pell’s warning shot does not make Francis understand that his own very cardinals are ready to call him heretical, I do not know what will. One of his own close entourage has just fired a warning shot so near to the target, that there can be no doubt he has the target in his sights, and will keep him there. If Francis still has a brain at all, he will understand that the warning shots are now landing increasingly nearer to the hotel run by the faggot, and he should prepare himself to run for cover if he continues with his heretical folly.

Obviously, the “counter-interview” will soon come. Francis here, and Francis here. So orthodox. We all love him. Wonderful Pope. What had you understood. Can’t believe it. Perish the thought. 

But all those with ears heard it loud and clear. 

God bless Cardinal Pell.

We need tanks like him against Francis’ “Revolutionary War”. 

Mundabor

 

 

 

The King, The Wolf And The Lamb

 

 

 

 

 

Wolf carrying lamb...

Wolf carrying lamb…

 

And here is Yours Truly wanting to write some short reflections about the feast of Christ the King, and comparing the Rex tremendae majestatis with the spiritual heroin of our times, the “religion of mercy”, of which Francis is pusher Numero Uno. 

But why invest all the time, when Father Z already said it so well? 

This feast reminds us that the Lord Jesus is indeed coming and that He will not come as “friend” or “brother” or “gentle shepherd” with hugs and a fluffy lamb on His shoulders. 

Follow the link for some very sobering considerations. 

Do not be deceived by the Lamb. 

Remember the King.

Realise that Francis is the most dangerous wolf in the whole forest. 

Mundabor

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,029 other followers

%d bloggers like this: